Gibbon wrote:
I think you either believe in rehabilitation or you don't. I do, although I should add that I don't think Evans should be playing for any club until the matter is resolved... i.e his license period finishes or he establishes his innocence. In the latter case I'd imagine he'd be looking at substantial damages for loss of earnings.

Given that the verdict is currently being reviewed, I can't see the justification for preventing him from playing in the meantime. We have a principle of innocent until proven guilty, and since there's a doubt whether the conviction was correct, guilt can't be said to be proven. If the verdict is upheld, then the argument remains as to whether a rapist should be allowed to return to the game after serving his sentence. But if it's overturned, then Evans suddenly becomes a victim. It would not be justice to punish him further whilst they're questioning whether he should have been punished at all. But then justice doesn't seem to be so important these days, the system is more concerned with conviction rates and the public want hate figures.

Gibbon wrote:His subsequent treatment at the hands of fans and the media will make him more of an example than a role model

I'd have liked a large proportion of his future earnings go towards helping victims of Rape, though I'm not sure that would have been within the powers of our current legal system. Still all of this could redundant if he manages to overturn his sentence.

I do think it's ludicrous that he's coming under fire for not having shown any contrition, when he's constantly maintained his innocence.

Like he'd donate his earnings to that when he's still adamant he did nothing wrong in the first place

Did I not make the implication clear that it would have been court ordered?

Gibbon wrote:Surely the system was innocent until proven guilty, which he was. It then becomes guilty until proven innocent?

If it's being questioned whether the original verdict was correct, then guilt hasn't ever been proven, it can't have been by definition if there's a doubt. And as far as I understand it, the test is still only to provide reasonable doubt that he's guilty, he doesn't have to make a case to prove his innocence. Whilst the review is ongoing, that in itself creates a reasonable doubt that he's guilty. I think that's why the media started adding the word "convicted" in front of "rapist" once the review started.